Tumor characteristics and prognosis in familial breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 5-10% of breast cancers are hereditary and their biology and prognosis appear to differ from those of sporadic breast cancers. In this study we compared the biological features and clinical characteristics of non metastatic breast cancer in patients with BRCA mutations versus patients with a family history suggesting hereditary breast cancer but without BRCA mutations (BRCA wild type) versus patients with sporadic disease, and correlated these findings with clinical outcome. METHODS: We retrieved the clinical and biological data of 33 BRCA-positive, 66 BRCA-wild type and 1826 sporadic breast cancer patients contained in a single institution clinical database between 1980 and 2012. Specifically, we recorded age, tumor size, nodal status, treatment type, pattern of relapse, second primary incidence, outcome (disease-free survival and overall survival), and biological features (estrogen receptor [ER], progesterone receptor [PgR], tumor grade, proliferation and c-erbB2 status). Median follow-up was 70 months. RESULTS: BRCA-positive patients were significantly younger than sporadic breast cancer patients, and less likely to be ER-, PgR- or c-erbB2-positive than women with BRCA-wild type or sporadic breast cancer. Tumor size and grade, nodal status and proliferation did not differ among the three groups. Rates of radical mastectomy were 58, 42 and 37%, and those of conservative surgery were 42, 58 and 63% in women with BRCA-positive, BRCA-wild type and sporadic breast cancer (p = 0.03), respectively. The incidence of contralateral breast cancer was 12, 14 and 0% (p <0.0001) and the incidence of second primary tumors (non breast) was 9, 1 and 2% (p <0.0001) in BRCA-positive, BRCA-wild type and sporadic breast cancer, respectively. Median disease-free survival in years was 29 in BRCA-wild type, 19 in BRCA-positive and 14 in sporadic breast cancer patients (log-rank = 0.007). Median overall survival in years was not reached for BRCA-wild type, 19 for BRCA-positive and 13 for sporadic breast cancer patients (log-rank <0.0001). At multivariate analyses only BRCA-wild type status was related to a significant improvement in overall survival versus the sporadic breast cancer group (HR = 0,51; 95% CI (0,28-0,93) p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: The biology and outcome of breast cancer differ between patients with BRCA mutations, patients with a family history but no BRCA mutations and patients with sporadic breast cancer.

Two mutations of BRCA2 gene at exon and splicing site in a woman who underwent oncogenetic counseling.

BACKGROUND: Although most BRCA sequence variants are clearly deleterious and unequivocally pathogenetic, several are still classified as variants of unknown significance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We followed families undergoing oncogenetic counseling from risk identification to risk definition by genetic testing and risk management. RESULTS: We identified two germline mutations in the BRCA2 gene in a woman with breast and ovarian cancer. One sequence alteration was 859/G>A in exon 7 (V211I). The other second sequence alteration (IVS13-2A>T) affected the splicing site in intron 13. The latter alteration is not yet listed in the Breast Cancer Information Core database. RT-PCR resulted in transcription of a sequence lacking exon 7 and a subsequent anomalous stop codon in exon 9 thereby confirming altered messenger RNA (mRNA) maturation. Amplification of the mutation in intron 13 resulted in transcription of a sequence lacking exon 14 and an anomalous stop codon in exon 15 thereby confirming altered mRNA maturation. Both mutations led to a truncated BRCA2 protein in its carboxy-terminal region. CONCLUSION: The two BRCA2 mutations identified affect mRNA splicing fidelity and play a pathogenetic role in breast and ovarian cancer.

New hypothesis on pathogenesis of ovarian cancer lead to future tailored approaches.

In the last decades, management of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) has been based on the staging system of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), and different classifications have been proposed for EOC that take account of grade of differentiation, histological subtype, and clinical features. However, despite taxonomic efforts, EOC appears to be not a unique disease; its subtypes differ for epidemiological and genetic risk factors, precursor lesions, patterns of spread, response to chemotherapy, and prognosis. Nevertheless, carboplatin plus paclitaxel combination represents the only standard treatment in adjuvant and advanced settings. This paper summarizes theories about the classification and origin of EOC and classical and new prognostic factors. It presents data about standard treatment and novel agents. We speculate about the possibility to create tailored therapy based on specific mutations in ovarian cancer and to personalize prevention.

Distress and family functioning in oncogenetic counselling for hereditary and familial breast and/or ovarian cancers.

We conducted a psychological assessment during oncogenetic counseling for hereditary breast/ovarian cancer. Anxiety and depression were assessed with the HAD scale, and family functioning and satisfaction with FACES III. HAD was administered at baseline (t(1)), at risk communication (t(2)), at genetic test result communication, or at first surveillance in not tested subjects (t(3)); FACES III was administered at baseline only. We analysed a total of 185 questionnaires administered to the 37 subjects studied. Although not pathological, distress was significantly higher at t(2) and t(3) (p = 0.027 and p = 0.039, respectively). Health and marital status were significantly associated with distress. In a disease-free condition, anxiety was higher (p = 0.027) at t(2), and for single status, depression increased from t(1) to t(2) (p = 0.026). Families were perceived to be well functioning, and subjects were satisfied with their families. The data collected in this analysis could help to improve the quality of oncogenetic counselling in clinical practice.